The debate at GA last year over Overtures 16 and 23 hinged partially on whether men can legitimately use these English expressions as descriptions and not as identifications. That was an interesting, if truncated, debate. But Overture 15 leaves that debate behind and explicitly forbids a man from describing these properties of himself.

Dear Editor:
Joe Gibbons’ July 11 article “Exploring Overture 15 from the PCA General Assembly” is a paradigm of the problem with Overture 15 from the recent General Assembly. Gibbons uses the concepts of description and identity interchangeably, making it a sin to say the truth about one’s remaining sin. This is a disastrous conceptual error that is also present in Overture 15.
If we misunderstand and misuse human language, then when God uses human language to communicate with us, we will misunderstand and misuse His words. Again: if we misunderstand and misuse human concepts, then when God uses human concepts to communicate with us, we will misunderstand and misuse His communication.
Where Overture 15 says that “Men who describe themselves as homosexual…are disqualified from holding office” in the PCA, Gibbons comments that “‘identity’ language…[here stands] as a synonym with the ‘describes’ language in Overture 15.” But identification is not a synonym of description. This is a substantive misunderstanding and misuse of human language and concepts. The result is that Overture 15 does not forbid any of the things that Gibbons eloquently inveighs against but does forbid things that God commands His people to do.
Gibbons and others in our denomination argue that an officer of the church should not “cherish a homosexual or gay self-conception,” but since cherishing is internal one can do that while refraining from describing oneself as homosexual. They worry that church officers might “envelop themselves in worldly desires and appetites of the flesh,” but a man can do that with his homosexual desires even while refraining from calling himself homosexual. They claim that Christians should not say that homosexual desires are “uniquely descriptive of their lives and are an intrinsic part of their humanity,” but a man could say all of that without calling himself homosexual. As an example, recall the language popular in the previous generation that ‘I am an ex-gay man who still experiences some same-sex attraction.’ A man who uses only this sort of language could easily satisfy Overture 15 while constantly committing all of the sins and non-sins that Gibbons is worried about.
On the other hand, the only thing that Overture 15 actually forbids is describing oneself as homosexual. To describe some entity is simply to say the truth about one or more properties of that entity. As Scripture, the Westminster Divines, and Mr. Gibbons have noted, all Christians are beset with remaining sin. So some remaining sin or other will be contained in an accurate self-description uttered by any and every church officer of the PCA. In the English language, descriptive terms can sometimes appear superficially similar to identity terms.
I recently heard a pastor during his sermon comment that “I am a people-pleaser.” From the context it was clear that he meant this in the common Christian-lingo usage: he has a psychological disposition to seek and value the approval of people more highly than he should. He was describing an aspect of his remaining sin. The English locution of this description sounds on the surface like an identity claim: “I am a people-pleaser.” And it could at times be used in that way.
Similarly, the English locutions “I am homosexual” or “I am a homosexual” are descriptive phrases that signify the presence of a psychological disposition toward primary sexual attraction to the same sex. They sound on the surface like identity claims, and they sometimes might be used that way. Gibbons worries that a church officer may “feel such a strong desire to commit these particular sins daily that he chooses to describe himself by those sinful desires.”
True, that could happen. But a church officer, like the pastor I heard, could also truly have a disposition to some remaining sin and yet have mortified it such that it is actually not a strong daily desire in the way that Gibbons worries. A psychological disposition is not constituted by daily near-uncontrollable desire. When Paul said “O wretched man that I am!” (Rom. 7: 15-24), he described a disposition toward remaining sin that he currently possessed. On the interpretation of human language that Overture 15 codifies, Paul was qualified to write 13 books of the New Testament but was not qualified for office in the PCA. This is wrong.
The debate at GA last year over Overtures 16 and 23 hinged partially on whether men can legitimately use these English expressions as descriptions and not as identifications. That was an interesting, if truncated, debate. But Overture 15 leaves that debate behind and explicitly forbids a man from describing these properties of himself.
Such description is a constitutive part of confession of sin, which God commands us to do and promises grace to live out His will when such confession is done in the community of His Body (Gal. 6:2; Eph. 4:16; Jas. 5:16). Since this grace comes through confession, we cannot receive this grace without describing our remaining sin.
A question becomes immediately relevant: what if a psychological disposition to primary sexual attraction to men is part of a man’s remaining sin? Is this a disqualification from holding church office? The obvious answer should be “no,” since one can of course possess such a disposition while mortifying it according to Westminster Larger Catechism 139 (which Gibbons cites approvingly). But should a man also be forbidden from saying the truth about this remaining sin? Should he be forbidden from confessing it and receiving the grace from Christ’s body to bear his burden and so fulfill the Law of Christ? I should think the obvious answer is ‘no,’ but at least we are owed an argument to the contrary. Because saying the truth about this particular remaining sin is precisely what Overture 15 forbids.
Surprisingly but accurately, Gibbons makes a point of noting positively that Overture 15 does not forbid a church officer from “experiencing” such a psychological disposition – that is, from being homosexual – but only from saying that he experiences it! The underlying remaining sin of a psychological disposition toward same-sex attraction apparently does not disqualify a man, but the grievous sin of confessing that remaining sin does (supposedly) disqualify him. This confusion results from supposing that description and identification can be synonyms.
Gibbons laments the disunity and division that “this issue” has caused in the PCA, but I would suggest that “issues” do not cause disunity: they are abstracta with no causal powers. I suggest that what has caused disunity and division about Overture 15 is people, specifically people misunderstanding and misusing English words and concepts. I think there are some weighty theological differences in the background that deserve to be debated, but the division over Overture 15 is purely linguistic and conceptual. It should be obvious and uncontroversial that Overture 15 contains a grievous linguistic mistake. I plead with Mr. Gibbons and other supporters of Overture 15 to engage in loving, private, and extended dialogue and relationship with those who are worried about Overture 15 and its predecessors. The lack of such dialogue and relationship well describes the actual cause of our disunity and division.
Luke Kallberg is a member of Memorial Presbyterian Church (PCA) in St. Louis, MO.
Related Posts:

Both Esau and Jacob were members of the covenant family of God, it was not as if these two men were from different parts of the world, they were literally crib brothers. Of course we have to remember that Jacob was obviously not without his own sin. The scheme drawn up by Rebekah is something else, but irrelevant to the situation. Esau is responsible for himself. In one sense it’s not Jacob’s fault that Esau takes the route of allowing the trial of the moment to change the direction of his life. That comes precisely because Esau had allowed the bitterness of his own heart to make everything be seen through that lens of rage and animosity. 

Whenever the Apostle Paul lists out the “vices” in Ephesians or in another one of his letters a particular item which always strikes me as being in some sense the most personally damaging to the soul of an individual is without a doubt: bitterness. Yet the place where it really stands out to me when I am reading God’s word can be found in Paul’s sermon in the epistle to the Hebrews.
There in chapter twelve he says:
Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord: looking carefully lest anyone fall short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble, and by this many become defiled; lest there be any fornicator or profane person like Esau, who for one morsel of food sold his birthright.
It’s instructive that when Paul is looking for an example to help the people understand what he is getting on about here he goes back almost to the beginning of the history of Israel, the brother of Israel himself. Those familiar with the story know that Esau was hungry. Ironically the great hunter had no food to eat. So, what does he do? Entreat his brother to make him some stew and the price, which in hindsight is more precious than gold, is something which he felt like he did not need at the time. Take a second and think for a moment why this would be an image a Bible writer like Paul would turn to… For it really shouldn’t take much time to see the wisdom here. What Esau did was not just silly in the moment, it was self-defeating in the long term. His hatred of God manifested itself in the way he considered Jacob, and himself.
The larger context of what the apostle is writing about here is the way the believer deals with suffering in the Christian life. His particular concern is that the lover of Jesus recognize that to be embittered towards those who are persecuting them only gives the tormentor power over them. While it is true to say that we are to rise above pettiness that is definitely one of those truths that is more easily said than done. Our minds are not necessarily drawn towards grace as people we are in conflict with are engaged in doing the kinds of things that really get our goat. Of course, no one reading this in America is really going through any kind of real persecution.
Read More
Related Posts:

In the midst of the worst of this, I don’t think I doubted the truth of the scriptures, either. That was part of the problem: scary passages felt like chains binding me, guns pointed at my head. But it meant also that I could hang on to the passages of unequivocal grace. “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” “The LORD is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made.” There is nothing original that I can offer here: these are uncompromising promises about God’s trustworthiness in his character and in his love of each of us, and of those we love. I held on to these white-knuckled. And then, gradually, you realize that you don’t need to hold on that tightly, because you yourself are held.

I love being a Christian.
I mean, I love Jesus too. But I also love all the rest of it: Brunch after church with friends, hylomorphism, late-night Eucharist on Christmas Eve, and carols and stollen and roast beef and friends’ children whom I have known and loved since they were born, dressed in deeply miscellaneous animal and animal-adjacent costumes for the pageant. C.S. Lewis and John Donne and Charles De Koninck, Durham Cathedral and St. Cuthbert’s tomb, tucked away absentmindedly behind the high altar, the Aksum Empire and the Holy Roman Empire and all the little communes of monks and anabaptists, who read Acts 2 and 4 and decided to just go ahead and do it; stoles and copes and incense and candles; neoplatonism and canon law and postliberalism and hot cross buns.
And knowing that I am called to a high calling, that nothing good will be lost, that there are no ordinary people, that death has been killed, that our God and King has given us his body to eat, his blood to drink. I love it. I love the experience of being a Christian, and I also think it’s true, so there’s that.
But there have been times when I have found belief to be almost unbearable. And I’ve met enough other people who have shared this particular difficulty that I think my story might be worth writing down.
I was sixteen when I was baptized, but it wasn’t until grad school that I started more seriously to try to follow Jesus. In the decade after that grad school conversion, I went through various … well, in retrospect I’d call them attacks, or something. Episodes. Times I couldn’t stop thinking. I would call them, now, ruminations, though I didn’t have that language then. They came in three varieties:
First, an inability to stop thinking about the idea that God might not be good, might not be trustworthy, if Calvinism was right. Second, a sense of “I can’t live in a world where some people may be going to hell.”
Third, I also at various points felt intensely guilty about things which an objective observer would not say that I ought to feel guilty about. Can I spend time doing anything other than evangelism, or serving the poor? Does God want me to enjoy nature and read novels, or are these things worldly, of the flesh? How can I enjoy anything while abortion is an ongoing reality in this world, in my country?
These circling thoughts led to a kind of exhaustion about my own attempts to make sense of everything, and a sort of grief, a nostalgia for a time when I was just a secular person, not needing to worry about any of this stuff. I felt alienated from non-Christians and even from Christians who didn’t share my intensity and anguish.
And maybe a couple of times, at the worst of these moments, I felt like I was presented with a choice: you can cease to believe, or you can pray for faith. And I prayed for faith.
That choice didn’t feel like it would change reality. What it felt like was that I was given the option to become … a non-player character, somehow. Taking the blue pill, and so on: living in the psychological comfort apostasy offered.
Scrupulosity is agonizing. I had the worried-I-was-sinning kind, too, though usually I worried I was sinning by omission. But the ruminations: those are a real bear.
I’m not sure when I first heard that word — scrupulosity. I think at some point I probably googled “religious OCD,” which is more or less what it is, and what I could feel that it was. It’s been a weird blessing in my life that before my adult conversion, I’d experienced what might be called secular OCD: obsessive-compulsive disorder unrelated to Christianity. How OCD works is that it makes what feel like moral threats: your moral safety, or physical safety, is at risk; you are both unsafe and in the wrong, and performing various rituals (handwashing, not stepping on cracks: the disorder is varied in what it comes up with but it does seem to come up with the same things frequently) is what will put you morally and physically right again.
Very frequently what you care about most is what the disorder “chooses” to threaten you about: “wash your hands just right or your child will die and it will be your fault,” that kind of thing. Those with this disorder are not delusional: You always know on some level that the threat isn’t real, it’s irrational, and because of that, the disorder can be profoundly embarrassing. “Don’t mind me, just going to ummm… wash my hands seven times and then turn off the tap with the backs of my hands… for… reasons… you go ahead and start dinner.”
It started when I was around twelve, and I got a diagnosis fairly briskly and ended up at various points doing various kinds of treatments — medication, cognitive behavioral therapy — which all helped enormously. Because I am who I am, I also, in my teens, became deeply emotionally connected to Samuel Johnson, who had it pretty bad: he felt the need to touch each lamp-post as he passed it, walking the streets of London; he feared hell profoundly and often couldn’t find peace about that. I used to imagine inventing a time machine and going back in time to bring Dr. Johnson Prozac-spiked brownies; I figured that would be less likely to cause unfortunate changing-the-timeline butterfly effects than trying to explain enough contemporary neuroscience to him to convince him to take pills. I also didn’t want him to worry about what the implication of the efficacy of meds on this anxiety disorder was for the existence of the soul — he had enough religious ruminations of his own — but I worried about it. (I also, full disclosure, had a pretty intense crush on him).
The solution to that (the worry about the implication of the efficacy of the meds on the existence of the soul, not the crush) at least was to get better theology. If wine can make your heart merry, or doing shots of Jägermeister can disastrously lower your inhibitions, it’s not a problem in theological anthropology that a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) can dial down the anxiety enough to let you make the choice to ignore the OCD-threat.
The way this works, as best we can tell, is that it’s the repeated ignoring of those threats, that disciplined exercise of the will, that ultimately rewires those neural pathways; the meds just make the threats… quieter, the choice to ignore easier to make. That systematic building of good habits, of evaluating your own thoughts and feelings and being able to choose how to respond to them is what cognitive behavioral therapy does. You use your mind, reason, and will to physically reshape your brain.
It’s not actually very different than what a Book-of-Proverbs approach to becoming better at being a human being might be. The whole package of treatment begins to look, in fact, precisely the way one would expect if we were in fact bodysouls, rather than souls inhabiting bodies, and if we were rational creatures with an immaterial intellect which can operate via the will; in other words as if human anthropology and ethics work the way St. Thomas says they do when he talks about virtue. Just to say.
So anyway, post-high school, the OCD was pretty much dealt with. And then, after college, I started going to a Vineyard church (I’m Anglican now, if you couldn’t tell from all the flagrant scholasticism) and started actually spending time with people who believed that Jesus was, for real, not at all dead. And then I found that I really actually believed that too. And the stakes in life suddenly became much higher.
Conversion is always disorienting. But God gave me a time to work through the normal confusions of new Christianity: the sense that there is nothing that one can hold back, the realization that there are no guarantees that God will make ahead of time, for example, that you won’t eventually need to be martyred; all the normal pricks of an awakened conscience; all the joy and amazement of the first Christmas where you find out that the carols you’ve been singing your whole life contain treasures which had somehow been hidden from you, lines that are suddenly alive and blazing with glory: “veiled in flesh the Godhead see/hail th’incarnate Deity/pleased as man with man to dwell/Jesus, our Emmanuel.”
But within the first two years after I converted, I had my first major bout of scrupulosity.
As I’ve said, the feeling of OCD is one of profound danger and also of a bad conscience, in a way. It can overlap with “real conscience,” but it’s distinct enough, if you know it, to recognize. There was something going on here that was not just “what reality is like,” “what being a sinner and having a bad conscience is like,” or “what Christianity is like.”
I’m an extremely curious person and I’m also a nerd, particularly when it comes to history and historical theology. What I found, after I started digging, is that scrupulosity is a known spiritual malady that pastors have been saying “oy, not this again” about for two thousand years. It’s also a neurological OCD-related condition that can be treated on that basis, and confessors and spiritual directors have used cognitive behavioral therapy-like tools for most of the last two millennia to do just that.
The classical Protestant experience of scrupulosity is the lack of “assurance” of salvation which is read as evidence of a lack of election. A more contemporary Protestant experience is the fear that one hasn’t “been saved” properly, that sure, you said the Sinner’s Prayer but it kinda seems like maybe it didn’t … take. It is not, however, the case that Catholic spirituality is without its own specific pitfalls about scrupulosity. A classical Catholic experience is the fear that you didn’t remember everything you needed to confess and that therefore you are not safe in taking the Eucharist; this has kept many people away from the Mass for years.
As I mentioned above, there are two pretty distinct versions of scrupulosity. There’s the one that resembles “secular” OCD and which leads sufferers to either perform repetitive prayers (not as in liturgical prayer, but as in a self-imposed “I have to say exactly these words with exactly the right emphasis and feelings for it to count”) or to confess over and over again (Luther’s poor confessor!) in order to “feel like they’ve gotten it right.” And then there’s the delightful experience of repetitive, racing thoughts, ruminations over theological questions, which one feels like one must resolve in order to be at peace. Neither makes for a particularly good time.
OCD has been called the “doubting disease.” Did I really turn off that gas burner? Did I really lock the door? I think I did, I remember doing it… but if I did, why do I doubt so profoundly that I did, why do I feel in danger? Better check. In other words, subjective uncertainty presents itself as something to pay attention to, something that gives good information. In non-religious OCD, one learns to talk back to one’s mind: “yes, I know you are subjectively uncertain, but that has nothing to do with reality.”
The Puritanism which is so beloved of the New Calvinism has, as one of its signature ideas (although one might, and many have, argued that this is a distortion of the actual teaching) that a subjective assurance of salvation is a necessary mark of true salvation. This idea was carried over into some versions of the revivalism of both Great Awakenings. Anxiety becomes part of the process. One sits on the “anxious bench,” until one receives assurance. Those with an unaddressed anxiety disorder can sit there for a long, long time.
Am I saved? Am I right before God? It is a question that can lead to repentance, to baptism, to a life of discipleship. It can also, in a baptized person with every reason to trust that God’s promises apply to him, now adopted into Christ’s family, be the content of irrational ruminations. But so can “Can God be trusted?” and “Does God want my family to be saved?” And this can get very very refined indeed — as refined as your theology: “is ‘good’ meant equivocally or analogically when we predicate it of God? Are you sure? But are you sure? How about ‘love’? Is monergism true? What can it mean that God desires all men to be saved if monergism is true? How can I trust that he wants me to be? Better think about this for five hours in the middle of the night to try to solve it.”
I suppose most Christians have bouts of something like this at some point; we’re all on something of a spectrum, with many of these kinds of mental distress. Anxious hearts are a common human malady, which God addresses; and of course some anxiety is good, some fears are real. How to distinguish between this and scrupulosity which ought to be treated as such? I can only tell my story. Probably the best thing would be to talk to your pastor; ask him if he even knows the word scrupulosity; that’s a good start. Above all, do not attempt to go it alone.
Read More
Related Posts: